"The two year old Artificial Intelligence (AI) known as the Buddhabot began answering questions on Yahoo! Answers last week. The Buddhabot has answered 102 questions and so far eleven have been selected as better than the human answers."
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Buddhabot/Answers/prweb418515.htm
This is a very interesting project. The creator suggests that with some more time to develop the software the Buddhabot will be able to pass the Turing Test wherein a human engaged in conversation with the computer will be unable to determine that it is not another human.
I think that if he is able to reach this goal there may be some interesting implications for many fields, but for education in particular. Presuming the availability of hardware on which to run the software, every student would have access to a potentially extremely knowledgeable and dedicated teacher. The characteristics of the teacher could be tailored to the potential and learning style of the student. The teachers answers could be tailored to stimulate each student to explore and expand his own unique talents without the constraints of addressing many students at once.
Development of compatible psychological models encompassing humor, compassion, physical expression and other human traits could further expand the capabilities of an AI teacher, allowing it to, for example, help the student to develop social skills appropriate to whatever culture he intends to visit. For example, an American student could request that the teacher help him to learn the social skills common to Tokyo prior to a visit there. The AI teacher could load Japanese cultural modules to assume the manner of a Japanese person (or persons) thereby teaching in a fully immerse way. This would prepare the student to interact comfortably with other cultures even without fluent language skills.
Strong AI capabilities in a computer along with such psychological modeling such that speaking with the machine might open an interesting ethical can of worms. At what point does the machine require ethical consideration? If one were to add a psychological model that cause the program to ask questions about itself and its ethical standing in a way that was indistinguishable from a human, would that be reason to give it ethical consideration?
Since all of the internal working of an AI will, at least for the near future, be deliberately created by a programmer, it will be possible, in principle, to determine exactly how an AI will respond to any given situation. Some might deem this determinism reason to consider an AI purely mechanical and so undeserving of ethical consideration, regardless of how convincingly the programmer can construct the puppet that elicits a human emotional reaction. There will likely be some uncertainty in the prediction of how an AI will behave in a real-time situation simply because one cannot know all the inputs in a real situation in order to make a careful prediction. But then, isn't that how we ourselves behave? If one could 'pause' a human and carefully examine his environmental inputs and the state of his brain, would one not be able to predict his behavior similarly to the AI (presuming knowledge of the workings of the brain, similar in scope to the knowledge of the computer code of the AI)? If so, and I think that it is plausible to assume that this is true, what then is it that makes a predictable human deserving of ethical consideration and an AI not?
Given that the programmer has complete control over the 'personality' of the AI, if one were to construct an AI that expressed no desire or preference for ethical consideration, or, to take it to the extreme, actively rejected ethical consideration for itself, would one still be obligated to assign some sort of consideration to the AI? Would it make a difference if the AI were constructed such that it were aware of the ethics of humans, and applied those rules when interacting with humans, but still actively rejected consideration for itself? Such a construct could be an ideal servant, which is of course the precise purpose for which it was created, to serve humans.
Given that it is possible and practical to construct the perfect servant, intelligent and wise, aware of and with overriding desire to serve our needs and wants, without consideration to (or without capacity for) its own discomfort or disappointment, would it be ethical for us to do so? If we made a mistake in the construction of such a creature might we create a whole population of sentient slaves, miserably locked into their own minds, compelled to serve but utterly incapable of expressing their horror and outrage, instead able only to reassure their decadent masters that this is how they wish to be?
Of course this idea is explored in many fictional works, Brave New World among them, but in this world where most cultures treat even humanities closest peers with only the barest consideration and where some cultures don't treat their human brethren with even that much regard, would we heed those words of warning?
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Happiness Index
A study recently published by the New Economics Foundation expresses the idea that GDP is not a good way to measure the success of a nation. Instead they suggest their 'Happy Planet Index', an attempt to define what makes a nation successful.
The calculation of the index is rather simplistic:
and favors long-lived idiots. It completely ignores achievement or success. It appears to me that the index is specifically designed to rank western cultures near the bottom (the US is 150th, Russia 172nd, and the UK falls lower than Lybia) while favoring small, isolated subsistance cultures in highly productive climates such as top-ranked Vanuatu (not to imply that Vanuatu is just a bunch of subsistance farmers, but they aren't far above that).
This index deliberately penalizes resource usage in an absolutely negative way (global area is divided by population, so any culture that uses more per capita than that average is ranked lower). Cultures that exist in highly productive climates are given an artificial bonus because they naturally require less land than the naive global average ( global-area/global-population) figure.
A better method would be to determine the area required for minimal subsistance for each locality. More land is required to support a person in the Siberian tundra than in the Brazilian rain forest, so it doesn't make sense to penalize people living in Siberia for using more land to support themselves.
Unsustainable overconsumption should be penalized, so when total global consumption exceeds total global productivity (as it does now, natural resources are being consumed more quickly than they are being produced) localities that use more land area than required to subsist in their locality can be penalized at a rate dependent on the average over-consumption.
This allows a locality to consume resources greater than subsistance level penalty-free as long as total global consumption is sustainable. When consumption exceeds sustainable levels localities with the greatest consumption over subsistance in their locality receive the highest penality.
By such a measure the USA would still fall pretty far down on the list as a result of our over-consumption, but tropical subsistance cultures would drop as well, as a result of loosing their bonus for using less land than the global average.
There are additional complexities that are difficult to track. For example, the top country is an island that depends on tourism from and goods and technology developed by countries at the bottom of the list (the USA, china, etc). Without the over-consumption of these countries it is possible that the happiness level or ecological footprint of the country would be affected.
There is also no consideration given to the stability or survivability of a culture. One might call this the 'happiness stability' of a culture. While the inhabitants of a south pacific atoll might be ecstatically happy with absolutely minimal resource consumption, they may also be hugely impacted by the first typhoon or tsunami that comes along. If they are like most cultures this would likely affect their happiness level.
Better technology (which requires more resources) can increase the happiness stability of a culture by providing the tools necessary to deal with catastrophy in relative comfort and to quickly provide relief to other areas in times of need.
Since global disasters are likely in the future (large earthquakes, supervolcanos, asteroid strikes, global climate change) species-wide happiness stability would ultimately be maximized by increasing the self-sufficent populations on other planets. This is not a level of stability achievable by a low-technology culture.
So while the index provides a short-term measure of happiness, it doesn't reflect the fact that technology is necessary to provide sustainable happiness and that improving technology requires consumption of resources.
The message the New Economics Foundation is trying to send is clear and correct, we need to focus on reducing needless consumption. However, the analysis they've provided is so flawed that not only is it useless, if it were widely accepted as the definition of successful happiness it would be severely damaging to humanity (unless of course one subscribes to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement).
"The 178-nation "Happy Planet Index" lists the south Pacific island of Vanuatu as the happiest nation on the planet, while the UK is ranked 108th.
The index is based on consumption levels, life expectancy and happiness, rather than national economic wealth measurements such as GDP. "
The calculation of the index is rather simplistic:
| HPI = | Life satisfaction x Life expectancy |
| | |
Ecological Footprint |
and favors long-lived idiots. It completely ignores achievement or success. It appears to me that the index is specifically designed to rank western cultures near the bottom (the US is 150th, Russia 172nd, and the UK falls lower than Lybia) while favoring small, isolated subsistance cultures in highly productive climates such as top-ranked Vanuatu (not to imply that Vanuatu is just a bunch of subsistance farmers, but they aren't far above that).
This index deliberately penalizes resource usage in an absolutely negative way (global area is divided by population, so any culture that uses more per capita than that average is ranked lower). Cultures that exist in highly productive climates are given an artificial bonus because they naturally require less land than the naive global average ( global-area/global-population) figure.
A better method would be to determine the area required for minimal subsistance for each locality. More land is required to support a person in the Siberian tundra than in the Brazilian rain forest, so it doesn't make sense to penalize people living in Siberia for using more land to support themselves.
Unsustainable overconsumption should be penalized, so when total global consumption exceeds total global productivity (as it does now, natural resources are being consumed more quickly than they are being produced) localities that use more land area than required to subsist in their locality can be penalized at a rate dependent on the average over-consumption.
This allows a locality to consume resources greater than subsistance level penalty-free as long as total global consumption is sustainable. When consumption exceeds sustainable levels localities with the greatest consumption over subsistance in their locality receive the highest penality.
By such a measure the USA would still fall pretty far down on the list as a result of our over-consumption, but tropical subsistance cultures would drop as well, as a result of loosing their bonus for using less land than the global average.
There are additional complexities that are difficult to track. For example, the top country is an island that depends on tourism from and goods and technology developed by countries at the bottom of the list (the USA, china, etc). Without the over-consumption of these countries it is possible that the happiness level or ecological footprint of the country would be affected.
There is also no consideration given to the stability or survivability of a culture. One might call this the 'happiness stability' of a culture. While the inhabitants of a south pacific atoll might be ecstatically happy with absolutely minimal resource consumption, they may also be hugely impacted by the first typhoon or tsunami that comes along. If they are like most cultures this would likely affect their happiness level.
Better technology (which requires more resources) can increase the happiness stability of a culture by providing the tools necessary to deal with catastrophy in relative comfort and to quickly provide relief to other areas in times of need.
Since global disasters are likely in the future (large earthquakes, supervolcanos, asteroid strikes, global climate change) species-wide happiness stability would ultimately be maximized by increasing the self-sufficent populations on other planets. This is not a level of stability achievable by a low-technology culture.
So while the index provides a short-term measure of happiness, it doesn't reflect the fact that technology is necessary to provide sustainable happiness and that improving technology requires consumption of resources.
The message the New Economics Foundation is trying to send is clear and correct, we need to focus on reducing needless consumption. However, the analysis they've provided is so flawed that not only is it useless, if it were widely accepted as the definition of successful happiness it would be severely damaging to humanity (unless of course one subscribes to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement).
Thursday, June 29, 2006
How Much Do You Trust Us?
Today I stopped by StrategyPage.com, my new favorite news site for military news, and I encountered this story about the Israeli governments plans to buy F-35's and F-22's from the US govermnet. Currently they are irked by the US governments reluctance to release the source code for the computers on-board these planes, particularly the F-22, the US's newest and coolest multi-tasking plane.
This reluctance of the US is totally understandable and justified, the software is an enormous part of what makes these planes efficent and effective weapons. It's not something you want leaking to people you might have to engage in battle someday.
However, I'm utterly baffled by Israel's trust of the US hardware. The computing hardware in a modern fighter is deeply embedded in the system, and essential to nearly everything it does. It probably has hundreds of custom chips (ASICs, Application Specific Integrated Circuits) for which there is no source code. Their function is (or can be) fixed when they are manufactured, and the only way to figure out what the do for sure is to take it to a lab, strip the top off with some nasty chemicles, and then use an electron microscope to map the circuits. Then you have to spend god-only-knows-how-much time reverse engineering the circuitry.
Knowing how sneaky the US military can be, I would be not only very surprised, but also very disappointed if they have not used hundreds of the dirtiest, underhandediest and nearly undetectable uber-hacker tricks to ensure that the fighters we sell abroad today are utterly incapable of acting against our will tomorrow, regardless of who is flying them.
This reluctance of the US is totally understandable and justified, the software is an enormous part of what makes these planes efficent and effective weapons. It's not something you want leaking to people you might have to engage in battle someday.
However, I'm utterly baffled by Israel's trust of the US hardware. The computing hardware in a modern fighter is deeply embedded in the system, and essential to nearly everything it does. It probably has hundreds of custom chips (ASICs, Application Specific Integrated Circuits) for which there is no source code. Their function is (or can be) fixed when they are manufactured, and the only way to figure out what the do for sure is to take it to a lab, strip the top off with some nasty chemicles, and then use an electron microscope to map the circuits. Then you have to spend god-only-knows-how-much time reverse engineering the circuitry.
Knowing how sneaky the US military can be, I would be not only very surprised, but also very disappointed if they have not used hundreds of the dirtiest, underhandediest and nearly undetectable uber-hacker tricks to ensure that the fighters we sell abroad today are utterly incapable of acting against our will tomorrow, regardless of who is flying them.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Improvised Smoke Device
Last year about this time I made some Improvised Smoke Devices (ISD's):
I mentioned then that I'd like to make some much larger ISD's. Toward that end I ordered several pounds of potassium nitrate from the good people over at SkyLighter. I'll be processing small amounts of it into some nice ISD's.
I did look into the legality of manufacturing one's own ISD's, and it appears that its legal, at least for now, but I can't help but wonder if maybe as a result of my order there's an entry in a government database somewhere, just in case the need to do some data mining someday.
Given that I post on a number of electronics and radio-control (land, sea and air) related sites, have enough knowledge of pyrotechnics to safely assemble formidable devices and regularly use encrypted communications, a data mining system could easily place me on a list of people with the capacity to produce IEDs of any size with sophisticated triggers and delivery methods. In fact, with only off-the shelf components anyone over the age of 21 and with some imagination and skill with their hands can develop an effective remotely triggered IED with a variety of remote delivery options.
Next you're expecting me to say something like "Of course, I'd never actually do something like that", but the truth is not so simple. The question is not whether I would, but under what circumstances I might consider it.
Say there was an invasion of the country by a massive military power and the regular military were utterly destroyed, leaving defense of the country to the people. Sure it's far-fetched, but most anybody with the capacity to improvise weapons would do so under such circumstances. Clearly, its not a question of 'would you ever', but 'when would you'.
Would you mail an IED to a senator who voted for an issue you believed to be wrong? Of course not (at least I hope not). So there's a line there somewhere between 'would' and 'would not'. But where is it? I don't think so. It just has to be a situation where you feel that you need a weapon and none are available. Perhaps just a shiv, maybe something more sophisticated.
But what about people who are just curious about setting up devices like they see used by the bad guys in the movies, in the fireworks industry or demolitions industry. Are they bad people for wanting to explore that knowledge? Does wanting to blow stuff up make them evil?
Of course not, but the government knows that it's important to keep track of people with knowledge that could be dangerous. They also know that the vast majority of people with this knowledge would not apply it in the way they seek to prevent (e.g., as the unibomber did). But in the event that someone does apply it, huge databases of information to mine for information could make a huge difference in the search for the criminal.
So does it bother me that my name is probably now in such a database? No, I'm sure I'm already in it, and I doubt that anyone would seriously consider that I'd deliberately do someone harm (except under justifiable circumstances). It's not that I trust the government, more that I am confident that my lifestyle generates enough evidence of my activities to show that I couldn't be deeply involved in such a plot. I hope.
Anyway, off to bake some ISD ingredients :)
I mentioned then that I'd like to make some much larger ISD's. Toward that end I ordered several pounds of potassium nitrate from the good people over at SkyLighter. I'll be processing small amounts of it into some nice ISD's.
I did look into the legality of manufacturing one's own ISD's, and it appears that its legal, at least for now, but I can't help but wonder if maybe as a result of my order there's an entry in a government database somewhere, just in case the need to do some data mining someday.
Given that I post on a number of electronics and radio-control (land, sea and air) related sites, have enough knowledge of pyrotechnics to safely assemble formidable devices and regularly use encrypted communications, a data mining system could easily place me on a list of people with the capacity to produce IEDs of any size with sophisticated triggers and delivery methods. In fact, with only off-the shelf components anyone over the age of 21 and with some imagination and skill with their hands can develop an effective remotely triggered IED with a variety of remote delivery options.
Next you're expecting me to say something like "Of course, I'd never actually do something like that", but the truth is not so simple. The question is not whether I would, but under what circumstances I might consider it.
Say there was an invasion of the country by a massive military power and the regular military were utterly destroyed, leaving defense of the country to the people. Sure it's far-fetched, but most anybody with the capacity to improvise weapons would do so under such circumstances. Clearly, its not a question of 'would you ever', but 'when would you'.
Would you mail an IED to a senator who voted for an issue you believed to be wrong? Of course not (at least I hope not). So there's a line there somewhere between 'would' and 'would not'. But where is it? I don't think so. It just has to be a situation where you feel that you need a weapon and none are available. Perhaps just a shiv, maybe something more sophisticated.
But what about people who are just curious about setting up devices like they see used by the bad guys in the movies, in the fireworks industry or demolitions industry. Are they bad people for wanting to explore that knowledge? Does wanting to blow stuff up make them evil?
Of course not, but the government knows that it's important to keep track of people with knowledge that could be dangerous. They also know that the vast majority of people with this knowledge would not apply it in the way they seek to prevent (e.g., as the unibomber did). But in the event that someone does apply it, huge databases of information to mine for information could make a huge difference in the search for the criminal.
So does it bother me that my name is probably now in such a database? No, I'm sure I'm already in it, and I doubt that anyone would seriously consider that I'd deliberately do someone harm (except under justifiable circumstances). It's not that I trust the government, more that I am confident that my lifestyle generates enough evidence of my activities to show that I couldn't be deeply involved in such a plot. I hope.
Anyway, off to bake some ISD ingredients :)
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Sex Sells (your product)?
Its long been known that sex appeal in marketing materials is an effective tactic to get people to look at the material, but I wonder how effective it is at actually moving more product?
The poser over at NewsTarget has just put up an interesting new rant^H^H^H^Harticle about how advertising treats people like lab animals. His observation is that advertisers use the media to build an association in the consumers mind between a product like softdrinks and sex so that the consumer will be more likely to buy the softdrink. This is reinforced by the spike of carbs delivered by the drink.
Naturally he hasn't done any acutal research, and his site is little more than a crappy blog dressed up as a news site (what do you expect from a spammer and shyster?), but he does come up with some entertaining and thought provoking stuff on occasion (the rest of the time its fun to just laugh at him).
So I was thinking, I wonder how hard it would be to find a research group of men with very low sex hormone levels, such that they had low or no sex drive. It would be interesting to use a large group of these men along with a control group of typical men to study the effectivness of the 'Sex Sells' idea. Do men with very low sexual drive respond differently to sex-based advertising?
What other interesting sex-related studies might such a group be good for? Do they tend to pay female employees more? Do they promote them faster and give them better work assignments? Are they more productive in business environments because they don't constantly think evil things about their female coworkers? Are they just boring and deprived?
So many mysteries of the mind and body, so litte actual knowledge.
The poser over at NewsTarget has just put up an interesting new rant^H^H^H^Harticle about how advertising treats people like lab animals. His observation is that advertisers use the media to build an association in the consumers mind between a product like softdrinks and sex so that the consumer will be more likely to buy the softdrink. This is reinforced by the spike of carbs delivered by the drink.
Naturally he hasn't done any acutal research, and his site is little more than a crappy blog dressed up as a news site (what do you expect from a spammer and shyster?), but he does come up with some entertaining and thought provoking stuff on occasion (the rest of the time its fun to just laugh at him).
So I was thinking, I wonder how hard it would be to find a research group of men with very low sex hormone levels, such that they had low or no sex drive. It would be interesting to use a large group of these men along with a control group of typical men to study the effectivness of the 'Sex Sells' idea. Do men with very low sexual drive respond differently to sex-based advertising?
What other interesting sex-related studies might such a group be good for? Do they tend to pay female employees more? Do they promote them faster and give them better work assignments? Are they more productive in business environments because they don't constantly think evil things about their female coworkers? Are they just boring and deprived?
So many mysteries of the mind and body, so litte actual knowledge.
Monday, August 15, 2005
A Blog Thing
Here's one of those oh-so-popular blog thingies.
I think people should be responsible for their own actions, and as much as practical, observe the "golden rule".
Companies should be focused on making a profit for their shareholders, but, being made of people, a companies actions should be tempered by how those actions will effect people.
The environment effects everyone, and there is mounting evidence that we're farking it up beyond repair, therefore, we should be taking extraordinary measures to protect it (but we won't, kind of like the Titanic, Snowball-Earth, dead-ahead! ).
Your Political Profile |
Overall: 45% Conservative, 55% Liberal |
Social Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal |
Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal |
Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal |
Friday, August 12, 2005
Oops!
Ok, so maybe it really is too late.
It seems that a massive peat bog (thousands of square miles) in nothern Siberia is melting for the first time in 11,000 years, an event which could release massive amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
I've got this mental image of mankind balanced at the top of a slippery slope, arms windmilling, attempting to not start the uncontrolled slide when along comes a bog mummy and gives mankind a big shove in the back.
Bummer dude.
It seems that a massive peat bog (thousands of square miles) in nothern Siberia is melting for the first time in 11,000 years, an event which could release massive amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
I've got this mental image of mankind balanced at the top of a slippery slope, arms windmilling, attempting to not start the uncontrolled slide when along comes a bog mummy and gives mankind a big shove in the back.
Bummer dude.
The powers that be in Kansas have recently decided to de-emphasize the role of evolution in education. While this debate has been going on for a number of years, I still find it interesting to watch. It's a little dishearting to see modern people rejecting the findings of science in favor of faith, not because I believe that the findings of scientific findings are inherently better than religious beliefs (I do believe that, but it is not what concerns me), but because I think that they are not proposing the right solutions.
The basic problem is that these people want a religious based education for their children, and our public school system is incapable of providing this (because of the principle of seperation of church and state, which IMO ought to be maintained). There are many ways to solve this (vouchers for transfering the public funds for the education of each child to a private school, church-funded classes that are overseen and accredited by the local public school system, etc), but focusing on the ape-to-man-is-a-theory-not-a-fact argument is really not a good path, it solves the wrong problem.
Anyone who teachs that man evolved from apes is a fact doesn't understand science. While evolution itself is fact, it does not follow that man evolved from apes. Evolution is a fact because we can observe and demonstrate that self-replicating things change over time (this is, in a nutshell, the definition of evolution). This is a very basic thing and it is easily demonstrated. We frequently see micro-evolution in microbes. We see macro-evolution in computer models of self-replicating things, and we can see that the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is really just a difference in the time scale. However, it can be difficult to convince some people that macro-evolution occurs in nature. The evidence tends to be buried and incomplete and extracting information from it requires a great deal of background knowledge about the field. Convincing people who lack that background, or who lack a concept of the depth of knowledge required to see the connections can be very difficult. Particularly when they are confortable with a much simpler idea that explains the matter within their framework of knowledge (e.g., 'God exists, and is very powerful. Men don't look or act like apes, and I think too highly of myself to believe that my great*300,000 grandma could have been an ape, so it is clear that God created Man just as he appears now').
No one who knows anything about science should have any objection to telling people that the evolutionary theory of the orgin of species (man in particular) is 'just' a theory. Thats exactly what it is. Richard Feynman, a particularly gifted and insightful man once said "science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves." This is the most important thing that anyone should understand about 'science'. Science is not a belief system or a way of finding truth. It's the methods we've found that help us to eliminate ideas that are wrong from ideas that might be right.
I think that what supporters of theories (and I use that term very loosely here) like 'Intelligent Design' object to is not that their children are taught the evolutionary theory of the origin of man, but that they think (and are probably correct) that their children are being taught that the theory is fact instead of the best idea we've come up with that fits the observations and does not have the kinds of features that we've learned are typical when we are fooling ourselves.
Perhaps what our religious friends in Kansas should be pushing for is a better education about what science is and how it works. The fact that many people think that its a good idea to put a sticker on a science text book that warns that it is full of unproven theories points to a pretty serious and evidently widespread misconception of what science is.
The basic problem is that these people want a religious based education for their children, and our public school system is incapable of providing this (because of the principle of seperation of church and state, which IMO ought to be maintained). There are many ways to solve this (vouchers for transfering the public funds for the education of each child to a private school, church-funded classes that are overseen and accredited by the local public school system, etc), but focusing on the ape-to-man-is-a-theory-not-a-fact argument is really not a good path, it solves the wrong problem.
Anyone who teachs that man evolved from apes is a fact doesn't understand science. While evolution itself is fact, it does not follow that man evolved from apes. Evolution is a fact because we can observe and demonstrate that self-replicating things change over time (this is, in a nutshell, the definition of evolution). This is a very basic thing and it is easily demonstrated. We frequently see micro-evolution in microbes. We see macro-evolution in computer models of self-replicating things, and we can see that the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is really just a difference in the time scale. However, it can be difficult to convince some people that macro-evolution occurs in nature. The evidence tends to be buried and incomplete and extracting information from it requires a great deal of background knowledge about the field. Convincing people who lack that background, or who lack a concept of the depth of knowledge required to see the connections can be very difficult. Particularly when they are confortable with a much simpler idea that explains the matter within their framework of knowledge (e.g., 'God exists, and is very powerful. Men don't look or act like apes, and I think too highly of myself to believe that my great*300,000 grandma could have been an ape, so it is clear that God created Man just as he appears now').
No one who knows anything about science should have any objection to telling people that the evolutionary theory of the orgin of species (man in particular) is 'just' a theory. Thats exactly what it is. Richard Feynman, a particularly gifted and insightful man once said "science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves." This is the most important thing that anyone should understand about 'science'. Science is not a belief system or a way of finding truth. It's the methods we've found that help us to eliminate ideas that are wrong from ideas that might be right.
I think that what supporters of theories (and I use that term very loosely here) like 'Intelligent Design' object to is not that their children are taught the evolutionary theory of the origin of man, but that they think (and are probably correct) that their children are being taught that the theory is fact instead of the best idea we've come up with that fits the observations and does not have the kinds of features that we've learned are typical when we are fooling ourselves.
Perhaps what our religious friends in Kansas should be pushing for is a better education about what science is and how it works. The fact that many people think that its a good idea to put a sticker on a science text book that warns that it is full of unproven theories points to a pretty serious and evidently widespread misconception of what science is.
Friday, July 22, 2005
How Old?
So, how old are you anyway? When asked of a person, the question really means "How long ago were you birthed?", but the question has some other interesting elements as well.
The essential 'me' might be considered to be my mind, and thats probably been around since not long after my birth, albeit in a more primitive form. But my mind is always changing. A mind is a river, changing in every instant, and yet recognizable through time.
But my mind is a part of my body; how old is that? Obviously some parts are new, the skin is renewed quite frequently for example, while others are mostly 'original equipment', the brain comes to mind, so to speak. But are those cells really new? The come directly from other cells, leading all the way back to a single cell with my genetic makeup. And even that cell, with the exception of half its instruction set, a fairly small part of its makeup, came from some other cell. So the cells making up my body have a lineage that extends all the way back, presumably, to not only some of the very first cells on Earth (and if you believe in panspermia, possibly even from Mars or another distant body), but to pre-cell formations. Somewhere in the distant past a few organic molecules came together in a configuration that happened to be self-replicating, and from that event an unbroken chain of replications hundreds of millions of years long leads to directly to me.
So how old am I? In a sense, I am new in every instant, and yet I am also hundreds of millions of years old.
The essential 'me' might be considered to be my mind, and thats probably been around since not long after my birth, albeit in a more primitive form. But my mind is always changing. A mind is a river, changing in every instant, and yet recognizable through time.
But my mind is a part of my body; how old is that? Obviously some parts are new, the skin is renewed quite frequently for example, while others are mostly 'original equipment', the brain comes to mind, so to speak. But are those cells really new? The come directly from other cells, leading all the way back to a single cell with my genetic makeup. And even that cell, with the exception of half its instruction set, a fairly small part of its makeup, came from some other cell. So the cells making up my body have a lineage that extends all the way back, presumably, to not only some of the very first cells on Earth (and if you believe in panspermia, possibly even from Mars or another distant body), but to pre-cell formations. Somewhere in the distant past a few organic molecules came together in a configuration that happened to be self-replicating, and from that event an unbroken chain of replications hundreds of millions of years long leads to directly to me.
So how old am I? In a sense, I am new in every instant, and yet I am also hundreds of millions of years old.
Evolve or Die
It amuses me when I run across some peoples ideas about evolution. It seems that many people have some pretty grand ideas about evolution being some kind of progression toward perfection. As if nature 'wants' to cause changes that lead toward more ideal oganisims.
Nature doesn't 'want' anything. It just is. Life is just the stuff that tends to self-replicate and hasn't failed to do so. Yet. Evolution is just the (usually gradual) accumulation of errors in the replication. The errors that don't replicate as well tend to die off. Thats it, nothing grand about it.
Does it happen on other planets? Almost without a doubt. Does it always lead to the complexity we see here on Earth? Hard to say. Probably only in a narrow range of conditions. There is probably some horrendously complicated math that could accurately describe the probability of complex self-replication occuring under given conditions, but its likely beyond our current capacity to grok. Where it occurs, the vast majority of self-replication probably never progresses beyond simple cyclic chemical compounds. And there are probably places at the other end of the spectrum where changes are chaotic, and so complex replicators cannot develop. Somewhere inbetween is where we find ourselves. Just the right amount of energy and materials and time to allow for layer upon layer of anomalous copies to build up into things like ourselves.
Pretty remarkable from my prespective, I'm glad that it happens and that I have the capacity to appreciate it.
Nature doesn't 'want' anything. It just is. Life is just the stuff that tends to self-replicate and hasn't failed to do so. Yet. Evolution is just the (usually gradual) accumulation of errors in the replication. The errors that don't replicate as well tend to die off. Thats it, nothing grand about it.
Does it happen on other planets? Almost without a doubt. Does it always lead to the complexity we see here on Earth? Hard to say. Probably only in a narrow range of conditions. There is probably some horrendously complicated math that could accurately describe the probability of complex self-replication occuring under given conditions, but its likely beyond our current capacity to grok. Where it occurs, the vast majority of self-replication probably never progresses beyond simple cyclic chemical compounds. And there are probably places at the other end of the spectrum where changes are chaotic, and so complex replicators cannot develop. Somewhere inbetween is where we find ourselves. Just the right amount of energy and materials and time to allow for layer upon layer of anomalous copies to build up into things like ourselves.
Pretty remarkable from my prespective, I'm glad that it happens and that I have the capacity to appreciate it.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Mysteries of the Universe
Why do couches have a gap around the front edge? In many years I have not found any use for this gap. Well, ok, I did find one use. When I was about 14 I would come home from school, get a tray and load it up with bowls and utensils, then scarf down two or three bowls of breakfast ceral while rotting my brain in front of the after-school cartoons. Since I was not supposed to be eating all the ceral (it doesn't take long to go through the groceries when you eat 4 or 5 bowls a day), if anyone came home, I could quickly slide the tray, containing all the breakfast supplies, under the edge of the couch, where it would be safely concealed until I could finish it (or I forgot it until the next day, or worse, over the weekend).
But I'm quite sure that this is not the purpose that couch designers had in mind. At least, not in this universe. In my house, the only thing the gap under the couch serves is to suck in every cheerio, M&M, gummy bear, snack wrapper, hot-wheel, board-book, penny, and DVD case that appears in the vicinity. I believe that the gap may actually cause a slight warping of space-time within a radius of about 30 feet. In this way all the cheerios, M&Ms, gummy bears, snack wrappers, hot-wheels, board-books, pennies, and DVD cases that are left in the room gradually make their way toward the couch, no doubt gleeful in their escape from the roving Roomba or toddler, whichever is worse.
But I'm quite sure that this is not the purpose that couch designers had in mind. At least, not in this universe. In my house, the only thing the gap under the couch serves is to suck in every cheerio, M&M, gummy bear, snack wrapper, hot-wheel, board-book, penny, and DVD case that appears in the vicinity. I believe that the gap may actually cause a slight warping of space-time within a radius of about 30 feet. In this way all the cheerios, M&Ms, gummy bears, snack wrappers, hot-wheels, board-books, pennies, and DVD cases that are left in the room gradually make their way toward the couch, no doubt gleeful in their escape from the roving Roomba or toddler, whichever is worse.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
The Mind
When I speak of the mind I refer to the upper level of our consciousness, where we spend most of our awareness. There are lower level functions of our brains involved in perception of the world and synthesis of those perceptions into a mental representation that operate at a level below that of the mind, although both upper and lower level functions operate biologically in similar ways (both are functions of the chemical and electrical (and possibly other) behaviors of neurons). In a normal brain the mind is not aware of these functions, only their effect, which is a consistant, stable and well integrated representation of the world.
The entirety of what we precieve around us, as detected by our senses and reconstructed by the faculties of our brains, is a model of the real world, constructed and contained entirely within our minds. We normally operate within this model as if it were in fact the real world, but it is not. It is a highly filtered and processed view, with many assumptions so deeply ingrained that we no longer notice them. Some of the assumptions are things we learned as infants (i.e., the apparently Newtonian movement of a thrown object), others may be related to the way our brains develop physically (i.e., what kinds of stimuli produce a pleasure response).
We are probably born with most of the mental faculty required to build a mental model of the world around us, but I think that the details of that model are defined only after we gain some control of our senses and, as very small children, begin exploring the world and discovering relationships between objects and events. The innate abilities of our brains assemble our observations and experiences into a model with predictive powers. The accuracy of this model is limited in much the same way our senses are limited. We have difficulty conceiving of infrared or x-rays as 'colors' of light, because we cannot preceive them as such. We find the predictions of Einstein's theory of General Relativity under extreme conditions (the warping of space-time around massive objects for instance) counter-intuitive because our senses are only accurate enough to allow us to intuit a model with Newtonian physics.
It is important to realize that any reasoning we do is from the perspective of our mental model. An 'objective' or omniscent viewpoint, while a useful tool, is not truely objective. It is a model that we use to make predictions about what a hypothetical objective observer would believe. It should be obvious that the model of an objective observer is not really an objective observer, and will not make predictions that are completely consistant with an actual objective observer. Perception is inaccurate, therefore all models of things perceived are to some extent inaccurate, and so predictions made with them are inaccurate. To act otherwise is to deny our basic nature. Any proposition made on behalf of the objective observer must be credible when restated in the context of our own personal viewpoint, for the two are simply different facades upon the same knowledge.
The entirety of what we precieve around us, as detected by our senses and reconstructed by the faculties of our brains, is a model of the real world, constructed and contained entirely within our minds. We normally operate within this model as if it were in fact the real world, but it is not. It is a highly filtered and processed view, with many assumptions so deeply ingrained that we no longer notice them. Some of the assumptions are things we learned as infants (i.e., the apparently Newtonian movement of a thrown object), others may be related to the way our brains develop physically (i.e., what kinds of stimuli produce a pleasure response).
We are probably born with most of the mental faculty required to build a mental model of the world around us, but I think that the details of that model are defined only after we gain some control of our senses and, as very small children, begin exploring the world and discovering relationships between objects and events. The innate abilities of our brains assemble our observations and experiences into a model with predictive powers. The accuracy of this model is limited in much the same way our senses are limited. We have difficulty conceiving of infrared or x-rays as 'colors' of light, because we cannot preceive them as such. We find the predictions of Einstein's theory of General Relativity under extreme conditions (the warping of space-time around massive objects for instance) counter-intuitive because our senses are only accurate enough to allow us to intuit a model with Newtonian physics.
It is important to realize that any reasoning we do is from the perspective of our mental model. An 'objective' or omniscent viewpoint, while a useful tool, is not truely objective. It is a model that we use to make predictions about what a hypothetical objective observer would believe. It should be obvious that the model of an objective observer is not really an objective observer, and will not make predictions that are completely consistant with an actual objective observer. Perception is inaccurate, therefore all models of things perceived are to some extent inaccurate, and so predictions made with them are inaccurate. To act otherwise is to deny our basic nature. Any proposition made on behalf of the objective observer must be credible when restated in the context of our own personal viewpoint, for the two are simply different facades upon the same knowledge.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Justified True Belief
In the early 20th century many philosophers believed that knowledge was 'justified true belief':
A person S can consider a proposition P to be knowledge if, and only if:
Smith has a justified true belief that few observers would consider to be knowledge, although it does satisfy the conditions above. A number of modifications of the JTB scheme have been proposed, and yet none have really solved the problem. It remains one of the most important questions of modern philosophy.
The obvious problem with any variation on JTB is the 'T' part. Any evaluation of 'Truth' must be made from the point of few of an omniscent observer. This makes the scheme completely useless for me, as I am clearly not omniscent, and therefore I cannot evaluate the conditions. I could ask someone else who might know, but the problem remains, I have know way of knowing if they are mistaken (or willfully misleading me), or if my preception of their answer is correct.
Likewise, the 'J' part is difficult. Without the 'T', justification isn't absolute, its just 'probable'. So what we call 'knowledge' is reduced to things that I have some good reasons to believe. Clearly the reasons have to themselves have some good supporting reasons.
Circular, or more precisely, interwoven supporting reasons are the only way to avoid an infinite regression of reasons. Since such a network of supporting facts could be internally consistant and yet still be wrong, it is important to compare the system to observed reality. Those places where large areas of the system have no directly observable counterpart in reality should be questioned. Thats not to say one shouldn't make some guesses as to how things might link together, but such conjecture should be considered fiction until it can be supported via experimentation or direct observation.
In practice this is probably what most people actually do. The differences come about in what people consider valid support. For example, someone of faith might consider a particular feeling they experience when praying over a question to be valid, repeatable (more or less) empirical data that supports the idea that prayer is a valid method of gaining knowledge, and there there is an entity that delivers the answers. Someone like myself would consider that to be (exceedingly) weak evidence. It would be just as valid to conjecture that it is a method of making a random decison and feeling good about it.
The mind is, at this point in our science of the mind, too opaque to make strong statements about why we might feel one way or another when meditating/praying on a given question. This does not mean that the technique is not useful. Indeed, having a simple way to gain confidence and happiness without actually doing anything but sitting quietly for a while is a great thing.
A person S can consider a proposition P to be knowledge if, and only if:
- S believes that P is true
- P is true
- S is evidentially justified in believing that P is true
Smith enters a room and seems to see Jones. He immediately forms the justified belief that "Jones is in the room". In fact, Smith did not see Jones, but rather, a lifelike replica. However, as it happens, Jones is in the room, though Smith has not seen him yet.
Smith has a justified true belief that few observers would consider to be knowledge, although it does satisfy the conditions above. A number of modifications of the JTB scheme have been proposed, and yet none have really solved the problem. It remains one of the most important questions of modern philosophy.
The obvious problem with any variation on JTB is the 'T' part. Any evaluation of 'Truth' must be made from the point of few of an omniscent observer. This makes the scheme completely useless for me, as I am clearly not omniscent, and therefore I cannot evaluate the conditions. I could ask someone else who might know, but the problem remains, I have know way of knowing if they are mistaken (or willfully misleading me), or if my preception of their answer is correct.
Likewise, the 'J' part is difficult. Without the 'T', justification isn't absolute, its just 'probable'. So what we call 'knowledge' is reduced to things that I have some good reasons to believe. Clearly the reasons have to themselves have some good supporting reasons.
Circular, or more precisely, interwoven supporting reasons are the only way to avoid an infinite regression of reasons. Since such a network of supporting facts could be internally consistant and yet still be wrong, it is important to compare the system to observed reality. Those places where large areas of the system have no directly observable counterpart in reality should be questioned. Thats not to say one shouldn't make some guesses as to how things might link together, but such conjecture should be considered fiction until it can be supported via experimentation or direct observation.
In practice this is probably what most people actually do. The differences come about in what people consider valid support. For example, someone of faith might consider a particular feeling they experience when praying over a question to be valid, repeatable (more or less) empirical data that supports the idea that prayer is a valid method of gaining knowledge, and there there is an entity that delivers the answers. Someone like myself would consider that to be (exceedingly) weak evidence. It would be just as valid to conjecture that it is a method of making a random decison and feeling good about it.
The mind is, at this point in our science of the mind, too opaque to make strong statements about why we might feel one way or another when meditating/praying on a given question. This does not mean that the technique is not useful. Indeed, having a simple way to gain confidence and happiness without actually doing anything but sitting quietly for a while is a great thing.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Well, Duh?
In yet another stunning reversal, experts are now thinking that perhaps sun exposure isn't such a bad thing after all.
Ya think?
You'd figure that after 50,000 years in the sun the human body would have adapted to make sun exposure more useful than damaging.
Next maybe they'll figure out that people who get sunburned at the mere thought of venturing out into the 'real world' without an environmental suit are perhaps not getting the right nutrition.
For all our skill with technology, we sure have a darth of deep knowledge about how living things work.
Ya think?
You'd figure that after 50,000 years in the sun the human body would have adapted to make sun exposure more useful than damaging.
Next maybe they'll figure out that people who get sunburned at the mere thought of venturing out into the 'real world' without an environmental suit are perhaps not getting the right nutrition.
For all our skill with technology, we sure have a darth of deep knowledge about how living things work.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Where There's Smoke, There's Fun
With the Independence Day celibration coming up, I thought I'd see if I could find something that would be fun for the kids. I had some potassium nitrate lying around, so I figured I'd see if I could find a nice smokebomb recipe. Naturally that was an easy thing to find on the internet, so I mixed up a batch real quick.
The instructions mentioned that the mixture could be used as a powder, but was generally better when bonded, so I decided to do a test without bonding it. That was a bad idea, if it isn't compacted, it burns very quickly and doesn't make much smoke. Its more like rocket fuel really, and its good for scorching the hair off of ones knuckles.
For the next attempt I mixed up a smaller batch and went ahead and bonded it into a solid mass. I rolled it a bit and gave it a fuse. Heres the result.
The foil was there as an experiment, I wasn't sure if containment would make any difference in smoke production. I don't think it does. The fuse is a bit of paper coated in the smoke material. It burns at a nice reliable rate, and gives plenty of time to get ones hand out of the way of the higher rate burn (which is pretty impressive).
Unfortunately it was pretty windy today, so the test was less than awe-inspiring. It made a good trail of smoke, but not a huge cloud. It really did a nice job though, much better than commercial toy smoke bombs, although the smoke wasn't quite as dense.
I did a little bit of research into colored smoke, but that requires a bunch of other exotic chems that I don't have and don't really want to mess with, so I'm sticking with the old stand-by. It's quick and easy to make, and requires only two ingredents, both of which can be procured locally. Most drug stores carry potassium nitrate for around $5 for a 100g bottle. I have no idea what kind of affliction one would treat with it, but it is a convienant, although expensive, source.
For the second test I decided I'd need to go bigger to get a reasonable result on this blustery day. I used the remainder of my 100g bottle and mixed up what turned out to be about a 150g smoker. Here it is:
What a beauty, eh? It's about the size I was looking for, but quite a bit smaller than what I'm hoping to make for the 4th. The test was impressive. It burned completely in about 30-45 seconds, and even in the light wind made a huge cloud of smoke. I lit one of the commercial giant smoke bombs just before it as a comparison, and while the dense purple smoke was pretty, it wasn't very impressive because of the light wind. My smoker produced such a huge volume of smoke that even with the wind it completely obscured the street while it burned.
For the 4th I'd like to make one about 10 times this size. I'd like it to burn about 3 times as long, and produce more smoke. I'm looking forward to it.
The instructions mentioned that the mixture could be used as a powder, but was generally better when bonded, so I decided to do a test without bonding it. That was a bad idea, if it isn't compacted, it burns very quickly and doesn't make much smoke. Its more like rocket fuel really, and its good for scorching the hair off of ones knuckles.
For the next attempt I mixed up a smaller batch and went ahead and bonded it into a solid mass. I rolled it a bit and gave it a fuse. Heres the result.
The foil was there as an experiment, I wasn't sure if containment would make any difference in smoke production. I don't think it does. The fuse is a bit of paper coated in the smoke material. It burns at a nice reliable rate, and gives plenty of time to get ones hand out of the way of the higher rate burn (which is pretty impressive).
Unfortunately it was pretty windy today, so the test was less than awe-inspiring. It made a good trail of smoke, but not a huge cloud. It really did a nice job though, much better than commercial toy smoke bombs, although the smoke wasn't quite as dense.
I did a little bit of research into colored smoke, but that requires a bunch of other exotic chems that I don't have and don't really want to mess with, so I'm sticking with the old stand-by. It's quick and easy to make, and requires only two ingredents, both of which can be procured locally. Most drug stores carry potassium nitrate for around $5 for a 100g bottle. I have no idea what kind of affliction one would treat with it, but it is a convienant, although expensive, source.
For the second test I decided I'd need to go bigger to get a reasonable result on this blustery day. I used the remainder of my 100g bottle and mixed up what turned out to be about a 150g smoker. Here it is:
What a beauty, eh? It's about the size I was looking for, but quite a bit smaller than what I'm hoping to make for the 4th. The test was impressive. It burned completely in about 30-45 seconds, and even in the light wind made a huge cloud of smoke. I lit one of the commercial giant smoke bombs just before it as a comparison, and while the dense purple smoke was pretty, it wasn't very impressive because of the light wind. My smoker produced such a huge volume of smoke that even with the wind it completely obscured the street while it burned.
For the 4th I'd like to make one about 10 times this size. I'd like it to burn about 3 times as long, and produce more smoke. I'm looking forward to it.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Quantum Accounting
An interesting article was linked from Slashdot this evening. It seems that some guys with some background in quantum physics have come up with a possible way around the grandfather paradox. In the article it is reported that they think that since the math seems to indicate that time travel is possible (under some pretty extreme conditions), there must be a solution to the grandfather paradox. Because quantum mechanics deals with probabilities, they are proposing that anything that has a probability of one when you leave will be something your presence in the 'past', for instance, you won't be able to prevent your own conception by killing your grandfather before you or your father is born.
This idea has a cool feel to it. It gives me the impression that time and thus causality as we see it isn't what we think. That time is not an immutable march forward, and that maybe everything, past and future, is really all the same thing, linked in a way we don't see because of the way we exist.
It has been proposed that the reason all atomic particles appear to be identical is because they are in fact the same particle, interacting with itself along a time-like dimension. When traveling in one direction through this dimension we see the particle as normal matter, when traveling in the other direction we see it as antimatter. This doesn't explain why antimatter seems less robust than normal matter, but its still an intesting idea, and fun to consider. If the idea has any truth to it, its probably at a much more fundamental level than we currently understand. For example, I'd expect that it would have to explain how virtual particle flux comes about, why there are so many kinds of quarks (I really expect that if there is a 'fundamental' particle, there is only one kind, all these different kinds of quarks doesn't seem very elegent to me. Maybe we're just looking at them the wrong way).
Its kind of sad to know that we'll never know for sure. I surely hope that the 'everlasting life' folks are right, but thats not where my money is laid.
This idea has a cool feel to it. It gives me the impression that time and thus causality as we see it isn't what we think. That time is not an immutable march forward, and that maybe everything, past and future, is really all the same thing, linked in a way we don't see because of the way we exist.
It has been proposed that the reason all atomic particles appear to be identical is because they are in fact the same particle, interacting with itself along a time-like dimension. When traveling in one direction through this dimension we see the particle as normal matter, when traveling in the other direction we see it as antimatter. This doesn't explain why antimatter seems less robust than normal matter, but its still an intesting idea, and fun to consider. If the idea has any truth to it, its probably at a much more fundamental level than we currently understand. For example, I'd expect that it would have to explain how virtual particle flux comes about, why there are so many kinds of quarks (I really expect that if there is a 'fundamental' particle, there is only one kind, all these different kinds of quarks doesn't seem very elegent to me. Maybe we're just looking at them the wrong way).
Its kind of sad to know that we'll never know for sure. I surely hope that the 'everlasting life' folks are right, but thats not where my money is laid.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Mmm, beeer...
Some creative sole came up with this amusment:
TOP 10 REASONS WHY BEER IS BETTER THAN RELIGION!
10. No one will kill you for not drinking beer
9. Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.
8. Beer has never caused a major war.
7. They don't force beer on minors who can't think for themselves.
6. When you have beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.
5. Nobody has ever been burned at the stake, hanged or tortured over their brand of beer.
4. You don't have to wait more than 2000 years for a second beer.
3. There are laws saying that beer labels can't lie to you.
2. You can prove you have a beer.
1. If you've devoted your life to beer, there are groups to help you stop.
I'd add:
You can switch beers any time and nobody cares.
Nobody thinks you are strange when they see you without beer.
TOP 10 REASONS WHY BEER IS BETTER THAN RELIGION!
10. No one will kill you for not drinking beer
9. Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.
8. Beer has never caused a major war.
7. They don't force beer on minors who can't think for themselves.
6. When you have beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.
5. Nobody has ever been burned at the stake, hanged or tortured over their brand of beer.
4. You don't have to wait more than 2000 years for a second beer.
3. There are laws saying that beer labels can't lie to you.
2. You can prove you have a beer.
1. If you've devoted your life to beer, there are groups to help you stop.
I'd add:
You can switch beers any time and nobody cares.
Nobody thinks you are strange when they see you without beer.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mind Body
There is no mind-body problem any more than there is a program-computer or software-hardware problem. The original mind-body problem was that of early philosophers inability to reconcile the apparent immaterial nature of the mind with the physical nature of the body.
Now we 'know' that, like computer software, there are different ways to view the same thing. Software running on a computer can be though of either the way we programmers usually think of it, just as a running program 'in' the computer, or as electrons running around transistor gates on a chip.
For evidence of this nature consider the various methods of brain scanning that indicate that different specific areas of the physical brain are active during specific kinds of activities. This indicates that particular activities by the so-called nonphysical mind have a predictable (to a degree) and repeatable effects on the brain.
In the reverse direction, there are many methods of brain stimulation (ranging from transcrainial magnetic to direct, open-skull electrical and chemical stimulation) that have repeatble and (somewhat) predictable effects on both the body and the mind of the subject.
One could postulate that there is some unknown mechanism that forms a link between the substance of the brain and the 'nonphysical' mind, and that this mechanism translates causes between the two seperate entities, however, there isn't any experimental evidence that leads us to that conclusion. Our experiments pretty clearly point to the brain being, in part, the physical substrait of the mind, in the same sense that a computer chip can be the physical substrait of a computer program.
This is not to say that we understand in detail how what we call the 'self' arises from the activity of the brain, or even that we know most of the details about how the physical processes in the brain function. Just that there is evidence that the 'mind' is one aspect of the functions the brain provides.
Now we 'know' that, like computer software, there are different ways to view the same thing. Software running on a computer can be though of either the way we programmers usually think of it, just as a running program 'in' the computer, or as electrons running around transistor gates on a chip.
For evidence of this nature consider the various methods of brain scanning that indicate that different specific areas of the physical brain are active during specific kinds of activities. This indicates that particular activities by the so-called nonphysical mind have a predictable (to a degree) and repeatable effects on the brain.
In the reverse direction, there are many methods of brain stimulation (ranging from transcrainial magnetic to direct, open-skull electrical and chemical stimulation) that have repeatble and (somewhat) predictable effects on both the body and the mind of the subject.
One could postulate that there is some unknown mechanism that forms a link between the substance of the brain and the 'nonphysical' mind, and that this mechanism translates causes between the two seperate entities, however, there isn't any experimental evidence that leads us to that conclusion. Our experiments pretty clearly point to the brain being, in part, the physical substrait of the mind, in the same sense that a computer chip can be the physical substrait of a computer program.
This is not to say that we understand in detail how what we call the 'self' arises from the activity of the brain, or even that we know most of the details about how the physical processes in the brain function. Just that there is evidence that the 'mind' is one aspect of the functions the brain provides.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
On Religion, Part the First
As an atheist and minor philosopher, I occasionally find myself defending or explaining my belief system to others. Recently I've undertaken a background task of writing up a document explaining in detail my position and belief system. In it I will attempt to address all major questions and attacks against my position. Currently the major focus is religion, since most of the major discussions I find myself in are in regards to why I do not believe that gods exist. Part of the reason for this document is simply to be sure that my reasoning is sound. I can ensure that I understand the subject by exploring it in depth in this way.
I try not to hold a position simply because I believe it to be right, I want to hold a position because I have good reasons for it. I believe that 'having faith' in something should be limited to the smallest possible subset of ideas, similar to the concept of axioms in the field of mathematics. I also try to avoid contradictions and inconsistancies. While I recognize that it is valid to choose to allow contradiction and inconsistancy in one's personal philosophy, my personality requires that I choose to eliminate these things to the extent that I am able to do so. I don't mean to indicate that all of life can be reduced to cold logic, just that it is the basic tool of reason, and that reason is one of my goals.
The following is an excerpt from my paper, currently titled simply "On Religion". It is a statement of my position in regard to religious beliefs. What I ask of the reader (indeed, if there are any), is to read the excerpt and report to me if it makes sense; is it a clear and understandable statement of position?
My belief, and the position I am defending is that of the 'weak atheist'. The term 'weak' in this context does not refer to the strength of my conviction, but rather to the type of claim I am making. Atheism is literally 'without belief in gods'. The people who fall into this category fall into two camps, those like myself who are simply without belief in gods, 'weak' atheists, and those who, in addition to not having a belief in gods, also make the claim that gods do not or cannot exist. The latter is the 'strong' position. The term 'agnostic' refers to people who believe that we do not or cannot have knowledge necessary to know if gods do or do not exist. I am agnostic in that I do not believe that the existence or non existence of gods can be proven.
At first one might think that it does not make sense to call oneself both agnostic and atheist. However, the two terms are not at odds. Agnostisism tells us what someone believes about the 'provability' of the existance of gods, not about which belief he holds about the existance of gods. A claim of theism or atheism tells us that someone does or does not have a belief in the existance of gods. A strong atheist cannot be agnostic, as he claims to know that gods do n0t exist. A weak atheist may or may not be an agnostic. One could not have a belief in gods (weak atheist), and also believe that the existance of gods is provable (not agnostic), or that the existance of gods is not provable (agnostic). Of course, one who is agnostic does not have to be an atheist, he may believe that gods exist, and simply believe that they cannot be proven to exist; this would be an agnostic theist. I would suppose that many theists fall into this category, if god could be proven to exist then what need would there be for faith?
There it is. Comments? Note that this document is not intended to follow any rigorous format. The intention is strictly to communicate my thoughts on the matter in a comprehensible way, so its likely I will get off on tangents when explaining points.
I try not to hold a position simply because I believe it to be right, I want to hold a position because I have good reasons for it. I believe that 'having faith' in something should be limited to the smallest possible subset of ideas, similar to the concept of axioms in the field of mathematics. I also try to avoid contradictions and inconsistancies. While I recognize that it is valid to choose to allow contradiction and inconsistancy in one's personal philosophy, my personality requires that I choose to eliminate these things to the extent that I am able to do so. I don't mean to indicate that all of life can be reduced to cold logic, just that it is the basic tool of reason, and that reason is one of my goals.
The following is an excerpt from my paper, currently titled simply "On Religion". It is a statement of my position in regard to religious beliefs. What I ask of the reader (indeed, if there are any), is to read the excerpt and report to me if it makes sense; is it a clear and understandable statement of position?
My belief, and the position I am defending is that of the 'weak atheist'. The term 'weak' in this context does not refer to the strength of my conviction, but rather to the type of claim I am making. Atheism is literally 'without belief in gods'. The people who fall into this category fall into two camps, those like myself who are simply without belief in gods, 'weak' atheists, and those who, in addition to not having a belief in gods, also make the claim that gods do not or cannot exist. The latter is the 'strong' position. The term 'agnostic' refers to people who believe that we do not or cannot have knowledge necessary to know if gods do or do not exist. I am agnostic in that I do not believe that the existence or non existence of gods can be proven.
At first one might think that it does not make sense to call oneself both agnostic and atheist. However, the two terms are not at odds. Agnostisism tells us what someone believes about the 'provability' of the existance of gods, not about which belief he holds about the existance of gods. A claim of theism or atheism tells us that someone does or does not have a belief in the existance of gods. A strong atheist cannot be agnostic, as he claims to know that gods do n0t exist. A weak atheist may or may not be an agnostic. One could not have a belief in gods (weak atheist), and also believe that the existance of gods is provable (not agnostic), or that the existance of gods is not provable (agnostic). Of course, one who is agnostic does not have to be an atheist, he may believe that gods exist, and simply believe that they cannot be proven to exist; this would be an agnostic theist. I would suppose that many theists fall into this category, if god could be proven to exist then what need would there be for faith?
There it is. Comments? Note that this document is not intended to follow any rigorous format. The intention is strictly to communicate my thoughts on the matter in a comprehensible way, so its likely I will get off on tangents when explaining points.
Monday, April 11, 2005
8 Minutes to.. well, Something
I stopped by the library this weekend and checked out the 8 Minute Meditation
book that my many (har) readers may recall me mentioning in an earlier entry. While I was at the library I took about 5 minutes to skim about 80% of the book, and it seemed promising. Last night before bed I read the whole thing. I didn't get much more out of it than I got skimming it. The content is pretty spread out, lots of repetition. It advocates an 8 week program of daily 8 minute meditation sessions. Each week introduces a new technique.
I've been working on my meditation on and off for about 8 years, so I've pretty much mastered all the techniques in the book, but it does have some interesting ideas about active meditation. One suggestion is to wash a dish. Basicly each step of the process is done slowly and deliberately, while keeping a quite mind and just enjoying the here-and-now. I've done this in the past with many activities, often with vacuuming or when driving home from work. I didn't realize it was a well-known technique :)
Sometimes I'm not sure what I'm accomplishing when I meditate. Over the years my ADD-like mental behaviour has caused me to develop this idea that if I'm not actively thinking about something useful then I'm wasting time. I have a very hard time not doing anything. So if I just happen to veg on the couch for a while I sometimes feel like I'm wasting time that I could be using to doing something productive. It is for thise reason that I don't often get in long meditation practice. I generally use meditation as an aid for getting to sleep. When I lay down I clear my mind and 'just be'. Since I've been practicing this for many years I can generally fall asleep in less than a couple of minutes. Curiously, this hasn't affected my waking meditation, when I meditate I don't feel like its nap-time (as part of the structure I've set for myself, I treat the bed as the only place that I sleep, and I don't get in it unless I intend to sleep, which probably helps). I suppose I ought to start trying to set a time to do it properly every day to see if I can get some more out of it.
book that my many (har) readers may recall me mentioning in an earlier entry. While I was at the library I took about 5 minutes to skim about 80% of the book, and it seemed promising. Last night before bed I read the whole thing. I didn't get much more out of it than I got skimming it. The content is pretty spread out, lots of repetition. It advocates an 8 week program of daily 8 minute meditation sessions. Each week introduces a new technique.
I've been working on my meditation on and off for about 8 years, so I've pretty much mastered all the techniques in the book, but it does have some interesting ideas about active meditation. One suggestion is to wash a dish. Basicly each step of the process is done slowly and deliberately, while keeping a quite mind and just enjoying the here-and-now. I've done this in the past with many activities, often with vacuuming or when driving home from work. I didn't realize it was a well-known technique :)
Sometimes I'm not sure what I'm accomplishing when I meditate. Over the years my ADD-like mental behaviour has caused me to develop this idea that if I'm not actively thinking about something useful then I'm wasting time. I have a very hard time not doing anything. So if I just happen to veg on the couch for a while I sometimes feel like I'm wasting time that I could be using to doing something productive. It is for thise reason that I don't often get in long meditation practice. I generally use meditation as an aid for getting to sleep. When I lay down I clear my mind and 'just be'. Since I've been practicing this for many years I can generally fall asleep in less than a couple of minutes. Curiously, this hasn't affected my waking meditation, when I meditate I don't feel like its nap-time (as part of the structure I've set for myself, I treat the bed as the only place that I sleep, and I don't get in it unless I intend to sleep, which probably helps). I suppose I ought to start trying to set a time to do it properly every day to see if I can get some more out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
